[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171114165221.GF729@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:52:21 +0100
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] coccinelle: fix parallel build with
CHECK=scripts/coccicheck
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:04:49PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> diff --git a/scripts/coccicheck b/scripts/coccicheck
> index 040a8b1..7da82a1 100755
> --- a/scripts/coccicheck
> +++ b/scripts/coccicheck
> @@ -70,6 +64,13 @@ if [ "$C" = "1" -o "$C" = "2" ]; then
> # Take only the last argument, which is the C file to test
> shift $(( $# - 1 ))
> OPTIONS="$COCCIINCLUDE $1"
> +
> + # If -j option is given to Make, scripts/coccicheck runs in parallel.
> + # If coccinelle also runs in parallel, it fails because multiple processes
> + # try to get access to the same subdirectory that stores stdout/stderr.
> + # No need to parallelize coccinelle in this case - this mode takes only
> + # one file input.
> + NPROC=1
Shouldn't this also warn to the user, and recommend to use a proper form to
parallelize coccinelle? Otherwise a user might get the impression they are
parallelizing coccinelle where they really did not.
Luis
> else
> ONLINE=0
> if [ "$KBUILD_EXTMOD" = "" ] ; then
Powered by blists - more mailing lists